• 検索結果がありません。

JJ II

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

シェア "JJ II"

Copied!
49
0
0

読み込み中.... (全文を見る)

全文

(1)

volume 3, issue 4, article 49, 2002.

Received 04 April, 2002;

accepted 01 May, 2002.

Communicated by:A. Fiorenza

Abstract Contents

JJ II

J I

Home Page Go Back

Close Quit

Journal of Inequalities in Pure and Applied Mathematics

SHARP ERROR BOUNDS FOR THE TRAPEZOIDAL RULE AND SIMP- SON’S RULE

D. CRUZ-URIBE AND C.J. NEUGEBAUER

Department of Mathematics Trinity College

Hartford, CT 06106-3100, USA.

EMail:david.cruzuribe@mail.trincoll.edu Department of Mathematics

Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907-1395, USA.

EMail:neug@math.purdue.edu

c

2000School of Communications and Informatics,Victoria University of Technology ISSN (electronic): 1443-5756

031-02

(2)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page2of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

Abstract

We give error bounds for the trapezoidal rule and Simpson’s rule for “rough”

continuous functions—for instance, functions which are Hölder continuous, of bounded variation, or which are absolutely continuous and whose derivative is in Lp. These differ considerably from the classical results, which require the functions to have continuous higher derivatives. Further, we show that our results are sharp, and in many cases precisely characterize the functions for which equality holds. One consequence of these results is that for rough func- tions, the error estimates for the trapezoidal rule are better (that is, have smaller constants) than those for Simpson’s rule.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:26A42, 41A55.

Key words: Numerical integration, Trapezoidal rule, Simpson’s rule

Contents

1 Introduction. . . 3

1.1 Overview of the Problem . . . 3

1.2 Statement of Results . . . 6

1.3 Organization of the Paper. . . 15

2 Preliminary Remarks . . . 16

2.1 Estimating the Error . . . 16

2.2 Modifying the Norm . . . 19

3 Functions inΛα(I),0< α≤1, andCBV(I) . . . 20

4 Functions inW1p(I)andW1pq(I),1≤p, q≤ ∞ . . . 28

5 Functions inW2p(I),1≤p≤ ∞ . . . 41 References

(3)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page3of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview of the Problem

Given a finite intervalI = [a, b]and a continuous functionf :I →R, there are two elementary methods for approximating the integral

Z

I

f(x)dx,

the trapezoidal rule and Simpson’s rule. Partition the intervalI intonintervals of equal length with endpointsxi =a+i|I|/n,0≤i≤n. Then the trapezoidal rule approximates the integral with the sum

(1.1) Tn(f) = |I|

2n f(x0) + 2f(x1) +· · ·+ 2f(xn−1) +f(xn) .

Similarly, if we partition I into2n intervals, Simpson’s rule approximates the integral with the sum

(1.2) S2n(f) = |I|

6n f(x0) + 4f(x1) + 2f(x2) + 4f(x3) +· · ·

+ 4f(x2n−1) +f(x2n) . Both approximation methods have well-known error bounds in terms of higher derivatives:

EnT(f) =

Tn(f)− Z

I

f(x)dx

≤ |I|3kf00k

12n2 , E2nS (f) =

S2n(f)− Z

I

f(x)dx

≤ |I|5kf(4)k 180n4 .

(4)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page4of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

(See, for example, Ralston [13].)

Typically, these estimates are derived using polynomial approximation, which leads naturally to the higher derivatives on the righthand sides. However, the as- sumption thatf is not only continuous but has continuous higher order deriva- tives means that we cannot use them to estimate directly the error when approx- imating the integral of such a well-behaved function asf(x) =√

xon[0,1]. (It is possible to use them indirectly by approximatingf with a smooth function;

see, for example, Davis and Rabinowitz [3].)

In this paper we consider the problem of approximating the errorEnT(f)and E2nS (f)for continuous functions which are much rougher. We prove estimates of the form

(1.3) EnT(f), E2nS (f)≤cnkfk;

where the constants cn are independent of f, cn → 0 as n → ∞, and k · k denotes the norm in one of several Banach function spaces which are embedded inC(I). In particular, in order (roughly) of increasing smoothness, we consider functions in the following spaces:

• Λα(I),0< α≤1: Hölder continuous functions with norm

kfkΛα = sup

x,y∈I

|f(x)−f(y)|

|x−y|α .

• CBV(I): continuous functions of bounded variation, with norm

kfkBV,I = sup

Γ n

X

i=1

|f(xi)−f(xi−1)|,

(5)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page5of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

wherea =x0 < x1 < · · ·< xn = b, and the supremum is taken over all such partitionsΓ ={xi}ofI.

• W1p(I),1≤p≤ ∞: absolutely continuous functions such thatf0 ∈Lp(I), with normkf0kp,I.

• W1pq(I), 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞: absolutely continuous functions such that f0 is in the Lorentz spaceLpq(I), with norm

||f0||pq,I = Z

0

tq/p−1(f0)∗q(t)dt 1/q

= p

q Z

0

λf0(y)q/pd(yq) 1/q

. (For precise definitions, see the proof of Theorem1.6in Section4below, or see Stein and Weiss [17].)

• W2p(I), 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞: differentiable functions such that f0 is absolutely continuous andf00 ∈Lp(I), with normkf00kp,I.

(Properly speaking, some of these norms are in fact semi-norms. For our purposes we will ignore this distinction.)

In order to prove inequalities like (1.3), it is necessary to make some kind of smoothness assumption, since the supremum norm on C(I)is not adequate to produce this kind of estimate. For example, consider the family of functions {fn}defined on[0,1]as follows: on[0,1/n]let the graph offnbe the trapezoid with vertices(0,1),(1/n2,0),(1/n−1/n2,0),(1/n,1), and extend periodically with period1/n. ThenEn(fn) = 1−1/nbut||fn||∞,I = 1.

Our proofs generally rely on two simple techniques, albeit applied in a some- times clever fashion: integration by parts and elementary inequalities. The idea

(6)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page6of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

of applying integration by parts to this problem is not new, and seems to date back to von Mises [19] and before him to Peano [11]. (This is described in the introduction to Ghizzetti and Ossicini [7].) But our results themselves are either new or long-forgotten. After searching the literature, we found the fol- lowing papers which contain related results, though often with more difficult proofs and weaker bounds: Pólya and Szegö [12], Stroud [18], Rozema [15], Rahman and Schmeisser [14], Büttgenbach et al. [2], and Dragomir [5]. Also, as the final draft of this paper was being prepared we learned that Dragomir, et al. [4] had independently discovered some of the same results with similar proofs. (We would like to thank A. Fiorenza for calling our attention to this paper.)

1.2. Statement of Results

Here we state our main results and make some comments on their relationship to known results and on their proofs. Hereafter, given a function f, define fr(x) =f(x)−rx,r∈R, andfs(x) =f(x)−s(x), wheresis any polynomial of degree at most three such thats(0) = 0. Also, in the statements of the results, the intervalsJiand the pointsci,1≤i≤n, are defined in terms of the partition for the trapezoidal rule, and the intervalsIi and points ai andbi are defined in terms of the partition for Simpson’s rule. Precise definitions are given in Section 2below.

Theorem 1.1. Letf ∈Λα(I),0< α≤1. Then forn≥1,

(1.4) EnT(f)≤ |I|1+α

(1 +α)2αnαinf

r kfrkΛα,

(7)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page7of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

and

(1.5) E2nS (f)≤ 2(1 + 2α+1)|I|1+α (1 +α)61+αnα inf

s kfskΛα,

Further, inequality (1.4) is sharp, in the sense that for each n there exists a functionf such that equality holds.

Remark 1.1. We conjecture that inequality (1.5) is sharp, but we have been unable to construct an example which shows this.

Remark 1.2. Inequality (1.4) should be compared to the examples of increasing functions in Λα, 0 < α < 1, constructed by Dubuc and Topor [6], for which EnT(f) =O(1/n).

In the special case of Lipschitz functions (i.e., functions inΛ1) Theorem1.1 can be improved.

Corollary 1.2. Letf ∈Λ1. Then forn≥1,

|EnT(f)| ≤ |I|2

8n(M −m), (1.6)

|E2nS (f)| ≤ 5|I|2

72n (M−m), (1.7)

where M = supIf0, m = infIf0. Furthermore, equality holds in (1.6) if and only iff is such that its derivative is given by

(1.8) f0(t) = ±

n

X

i=1

M χJ+

i (t) +mχJ

i (t)

! .

(8)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page8of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

Similarly, equality holds in (1.7) if and only if

(1.9) f0(t) = ±

n

X

i=1

I1

i(t) +M χI2

i(t) +mχI3

i(t) +M χI4

i(t)

! .

Remark 1.3. Inequality (1.6) was first proved by Kim and Neugebauer [9] as a corollary to a theorem on integral means.

Theorem 1.3. Letf ∈CBV(I). Then forn ≥1,

(1.10) EnT(f)≤ |I|

2ninf

r kfrkBV,I, and

(1.11) E2nS (f)≤ |I|

3ninf

r kfrkBV,I.

Both inequalities are sharp, in the sense that for eachnthere exists a sequence of functions which show that the given constant is the best possible. Further, in each equality holds if and only if both sides are equal to zero.

Remark 1.4. Pölya and Szegö [12] proved an inequality analogous to (1.10) for rectangular approximations. However, they do not show that their result is sharp.

Theorem 1.4. Letf ∈W1p(I),1≤p≤ ∞. Then for alln ≥1, (1.12) EnT(f)≤ |I|1+1/p0

2n(p0 + 1)1/p0 inf

r kfr0kp,I,

(9)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page9of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

and

(1.13) EnS(f)≤ 21/p0(1 + 2p0+1)1/p0|I|1+1/p0 (p0+ 1)1/p061+1/p0n inf

s kfs0kp,I.

Inequality (1.12) is sharp, and when1< p <∞, equality holds if and only if (1.14) f0(t) =d1

n

X

i=1

(t−ci)p0−1χJ+

i (t)−(ci−t)p0−1χJ

i (t) +d2,

whered1, d2 ∈ R. Similarly, inequality (1.13) is sharp, and when1 < p <∞, equality holds if and only if

(1.15) f0(t) =d1

n

X

i=1

(t−ai)p0−1χI2

i(t) + (t−bi)p0−1χI4

i(t)

−(ai−t)p0−1χI1

i(t)−(bi−t)p0−1χI3

i(t)

+d2t2 +d3t+d4,

wheredi ∈R,1≤i≤4.

Remark 1.5. When p = 1, p0 = ∞, and we interpret (1 +p0)1/p0 and (1 + 2p0+1)1/p0 in the limiting sense as equaling 1 and 2 respectively. In this case Theorem1.4is a special case of Theorem1.3since iff is absolutely continuous it is of bounded variation, andkf0k1,I =kfkBV,I.

Remark 1.6. When 1 < p < ∞ we can restate Theorem 1.4 in a form anal- ogous to Theorem 1.3. We define the space BVp of functions of bounded p-

(10)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page10of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

variation by

kfkBVp,I = sup

Γ n

X

i=1

|f(xi)−f(xi−1)|p

|xi −xi−1|p−1 <∞,

where the supremum is taken over all partitionsΓ ={xi}ofI. Thenf ∈BVpif and only if it is absolutely continuous andf0 ∈Lp(I), andkfkBVp,I =||f0||p,I. This characterization is due to F. Riesz; see, for example, Natanson [10].

Remark 1.7. When p = ∞, Theorem 1.4 is equivalent to Theorem 1.1 with α = 1, since f ∈ W1(I) if and only iff ∈ Λ1(I), and kf0k∞,I = kfkΛ1,I. (See, for example, Natanson [10].)

Remark 1.8. Inequality (1.12), withr= 0andp >1was independently proved by Dragomir [5] as a corollary to a rather lengthy general theorem. Very re- cently, we learned that Dragomir et al. [4] gave a direct proof similar to ours for (1.12) for allpbut still withr = 0. Neither paper considers the question of sharpness.

While inequalities (1.12) and (1.13) are sharp in the sense that for a givenn equality holds for a given function,EnT(f)andE2nS (f)go to zero more quickly than1/n.

Theorem 1.5. Letf ∈W1p(I),1≤p≤ ∞. Then

n→∞lim n·EnT(f) = 0 (1.16)

n→∞lim n·E2nS (f) = 0.

(1.17)

Further, these limits are sharp in the sense that the factor of n cannot be re- placed bynafor anya >1.

(11)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page11of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

Remark 1.9. Unlike most of our proofs, the proof of Theorem1.5requires that we approximatef by smooth functions. It would be of interest to find a proof of this result which avoided this.

Theorem 1.6. Letf ∈W1pq(I),1≤p, q ≤ ∞. Then forn≥1, (1.18) EnT(f)≤B(q0/p0, q0+ 1)1/q0|I|1+1/p0

2n inf

r kfr0kpq,I, whereB is the Beta function,

B(u, v) = Z 1

0

xu−1(1−x)v−1dx, u, v >0.

Similarly,

(1.19) E2nS (f)≤C(q0/p0, q0 + 1)1/q0|I|1+1/p0 n inf

s kfs0kpq,I, where

C(u, v) = Z 1/3

0

tu−1 1

3− t 2

v−1

dt+ Z 1

1/3

tu−1 1

4− t 4

v−1

dt.

Remark 1.10. Whenp=qthen Theorem1.6reduces to Theorem1.4.

Remark 1.11. Theorem (1.6) is sharp; when 1 ≤ q < p the condition for equality to hold is straightforward (f is constant), but whenq ≥ p it is more technical, and so we defer the statement until after the proof, when we have made the requisite definitions.

(12)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page12of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

Remark 1.12. The constant in (1.19) is considerably more complicated than that in (1.18); the functionC(u, v)can be rewritten in terms of the Beta function and the hypergeometric function2F1, but the resulting expression is no simpler.

(Details are left to the reader.) However it is easy to show thatC(q0/p0, p0+1)≤ B(q0/p0, p0+ 1)/3q0, so that we have the weaker but somewhat more tractable estimate

E2nS (f)≤B(q0/p0, q0+ 1)1/q0|I|1+1/p0 3n inf

s kfs0kpq,I. Theorem 1.7. Letf ∈W2p(I),1≤p≤ ∞. Then forn≥1, (1.20) EnT(f)≤B(p0+ 1, p0+ 1)1/p0|I|2+1/p0

2n2 kf00kp,I and

(1.21) E2nS (f)≤D(p0+ 1, p0+ 1)1/p0 |I|2+1/p0 21/p32+1/p0n2 inf

s kfs00kp,I, where

D(u, v) = Z 3/2

0

tu−1|1−t|v−1dt.

Inequality (1.20) is sharp, and when1< p <∞equality holds if and only if

(1.22) f00(t) =d

n

X

i=1

|Ji|2

4 −(t−ci)2 p0−1

χJi(t),

(13)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page13of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

where d ∈ R. Similarly, inequality (1.21) is sharp, and when 1 < p < ∞ equality holds if and only if

(1.23) f00(t) =d1 n

X

i=1

|Ii|2

36 −(t−ai)2 p0−1

χI˜i1(t)

(t−ai)2− |Ii|2 36

p0−1

χI˜i2(t)

+ |Ii|2

36 −(t−bi)2 p0−1

χI˜i3(t)

(t−bi)2− |Ii|2 36

p0−1

χI˜i4(t)

!

+d2t+d3,

where di ∈ R, 1 ≤ i ≤ 3, and the intervals I˜ij, 1 ≤ j ≤ 4, defined in (5.2) below, are such that the corresponding functions are positive.

Remark 1.13. Whenp = 1, p0 = ∞, and we interpretB(p0+ 1, p0+ 1)1/p0 as the limiting value 1/4. This follows immediately from the identity B(u, v) = Γ(u)Γ(v)/Γ(u+v)and from Stirling’s formula. (See, for instance, Whittaker and Watson [20].)

Remark 1.14. When p = ∞, (1.20) reduces to the classical estimate given above.

Remark 1.15. Like the function C(u, v)in Theorem 1.6, the function D(u, v) can be rewritten in terms of the Beta function and the hypergeometric function

(14)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page14of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au 2F1. However, the resulting expression does not seem significantly better, and

details are left to the reader.

Prior to Theorem1.7, each of our results shows that for rough functions, the trapezoidal rule is better than Simpson’s rule. More precisely, the constants in the sharp error bounds for E2nT (f)are less than or equal to the constants in the sharp error bounds forE2nS(f). (We useE2nT (f)instead ofEnT(f)since we want to compare numerical approximations with the same number of data points.)

This is no longer the case for twice differentiable functions. Numerical cal- culations show that, for instance, when p = 10/9, the constant in (1.20) is smaller, but whenp= 10, (1.21) has the smaller constant. Furthermore, the fol- lowing analogue of Theorem 1.5 shows that though the constants in Theorem 1.7are sharp, Simpson’s rule is asymptotically better than the trapezoidal rule.

Theorem 1.8. Givenf ∈W2p(I),1≤p≤ ∞,

(1.24) lim

n→∞n2EnT(f) =

|I|2 12

Z

I

f00(t)dt ,

but

(1.25) lim

n→∞n2E2nS (f) = 0.

Remark 1.16. (Added in proof.) Given Theorems1.5and1.8, it would be inter- esting to compare the asymptotic behavior ofEnT(f)andE2nS (f)for extremely rough functions, say those in Λα(I) and CBV(I). We suspect that in these cases their behavior is the same, but we have no evidence for this. (We want to thank the referee for raising this question with us.)

(15)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page15of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

1.3. Organization of the Paper

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we make some preliminary observations and define notation that will be used in all of our proofs. In Section 3we prove Theorems1.1and1.3 and Corollary1.2. In Section4we prove Theorems1.4,1.5and1.6. In Section5we prove Theorems 1.7and1.8.

Throughout this paper all notation is standard or will be defined when needed.

Given an intervalI,|I|will denote its length. Givenp, 1≤p ≤ ∞,p0 will de- note the conjugate exponent: 1/p+ 1/p0 = 1.

(16)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page16of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

2. Preliminary Remarks

In this section we establish notation and make some observations which will be used in the subsequent proofs.

2.1. Estimating the Error

Given an interval I = [a, b], for the trapezoidal rule we will always have an equally spaced partition of n+ 1points, xi = a+i|I|/n. Define the intervals Ji = [xi−1, xi],1≤i≤n; then|Ji|=|I|/n.

For eachi,1≤i≤n, define (2.1) Li = |Ji|

2 f(xi−1) +f(xi)

− Z

Ji

f(t)dt.

If we divide eachJiinto two intervalsJiandJi+of equal length, then (2.1) can be rewritten as

(2.2) Li = Z

Ji

f(xi−1)−f(t) dt+

Z

Ji+

f(xi)−f(t) dt.

Alternatively, if f is absolutely continuous, then we can apply integration by parts to (2.1) to get that

(2.3) Li =

Z

Ji

(t−ci)f0(t)dt,

(17)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page17of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

whereci = (xi−1 +xi)/2is the midpoint ofJi. If f0 is absolutely continuous, then we can apply integration by parts again to get

(2.4) Li = 1

2 Z

Ji

|Ji|2

4 −(t−ci)2

f00(t)dt.

From the definition of the trapezoidal rule (1.1) it follows immediately that

(2.5) EnT(f) =

n

X

i=1

Li

n

X

i=1

|Li|, and our principal problem will be to estimate|Li|.

We make similar definitions for Simpson’s rule. GivenI, we form a partition with 2n + 1 points, xj = a+j|I|/2n, 0 ≤ j ≤ 2n, and form the intervals Ii = [x2i−2, x2i],1≤i≤n. Then|Ii|=|I|/n.

For eachi,1≤i≤n, define (2.6) Ki = |I|

6n f(x2i−2) + 4f(x2i−1) +f(x2i)

− Z

Ii

f(t)dt.

To get an identity analogous to (2.2), we need to partitionIi into four intervals of different lengths. Define

ai = 2x2i−2+x2i−1

3 bi = 2x2i +x2i−1

3 ,

and let

Ii1 = [x2i−2, ai], Ii2 = [ai, x2i−1], Ii3 = [x2i−1, bi], Ii4 = [bi, x2i].

(18)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page18of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

Then|Ii1| =|Ii4| =|I|/6n and|Ii2| = |Ii3| = |I|/3n, and we can rewrite (2.6) as

(2.7) Ki = Z

Ii1

f(x2i−2)−f(t) dt+

Z

Ii2

f(x2i−1)−f(t) dt +

Z

Ii3

f(x2i−1)−f(t) dt+

Z

Ii4

f(x2i)−f(t) dt.

Iff is absolutely continuous we can apply integration by parts to (2.6) to get

(2.8) Ki =

Z

Ii

(t−ai)f0(t)dt+ Z

I+i

(t−bi)f0(t)dt.

Iff0 is absolutely continuous we can integrate by parts again to get (2.9) Ki = 1

2 Z

Ii

|Ii|2

36 −(t−ai)2

f00(t)dt

+ 1 2

Z

Ii+

|Ii|2

36 −(t−bi)2

f00(t)dt.

Whichever expression we use, it follows from the definition of Simpson’s rule (1.2) that

(2.10) E2nS (f) =

n

X

i=1

Ki

n

X

i=1

|Ki|.

(19)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page19of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

Finally, we want to note that there is a connection between Simpson’s rule and the trapezoidal rule: it follows from the definitions (1.1) and (1.2) that

(2.11) S2n(f) = 4

3T2n(f)− 1 3Tn(f).

2.2. Modifying the Norm

In all of our results, we estimate the error in the trapezoidal rule with an expres- sion of the form

infr kfrk,

where the infimum is taken over allr∈R. It will be enough to prove the various inequalities with kfkon the righthand side: since the trapezoidal rule is exact on linear functions,EnT(fr) = EnT(f)for allf andr. Further, we note that for eachf, there existsr0 ∈Rsuch that

kfr0k= inf

r kfrk.

This follows since the norm is continuous inrand tends to infinity as|r| → ∞.

Similarly, in our estimates forE2nS(f), it will suffice to prove the inequalities with kfk on the righthand side instead of infskfsk: because Simpson’s rule is exact for polynomials of degree 3 or less, EnS(f) = EnT(fs), for s(x) = ax3+bx2+cx. Again the infimum is attained, since the norm is continuous in the coefficients ofsand tends to infinity as|a|+|b|+|c| → ∞.

(The exactness of the Trapezoidal rule and Simpson’s rule is well-known;

see, for example, Ralston [13].)

(20)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page20of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

3. Functions in Λ

α

(I), 0 < α ≤ 1, and CBV (I )

Proof of Theorem1.1. We first prove inequality (1.4). By (2.2), for eachi,1≤ i≤n,

|Li| ≤ Z

Ji

|f(xi−1)−f(t)|dt+ Z

Ji+

|f(xi)−f(t)|dt

≤ kfkΛα Z

Ji

|xi−1−t|αdt+kfkΛα Z

Ji

|xi−t|αdt;

by translation and reflection,

= 2kfkΛα Z

Ji

(t−xi−1)αdt

= 2kfkΛα|Ji|1+α 1 +α

= |I|1+αkfkΛα

(1 +α)2αn1+α. Therefore, by (2.5)

(3.1) EnT(f)≤ |I|1+αkfkΛα

(1 +α)2αnα, and by the observation in Section2.2we get (1.4).

The proof of inequality (1.5) is almost identical to the proof of (1.4): we begin with inequality (2.7) and argue as before to get

|Ki| ≤ 2(1 + 2α+1)|I|1+αkfkΛα (1 +α)61+αn1+α ,

(21)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page21of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

which in turn implies (1.5).

To see that inequality (1.4) is sharp, fixn ≥ 1and define the function f as follows: on[0,1/n]let

f(x) =









xα, 0≤x≤ 1 2n

x− 1 n

α

, 1

2n ≤x≤ 1 n.

Now extendf to the interval[0,1]as a periodic function with period1/n. It is clear that kfkΛα = 1, and it is immediate from the definition thatTn(f) = 0.

Therefore,

EnT(f) = Z 1

0

f(x)dx= 2n Z 1/2n

0

xαdx= 1 (1 +α)2αnα, which is precisely the righthand side of (3.1).

Proof of Corollary1.2. Inequalities (1.6) and (1.7) follow immediately from (1.4) and (1.5). Recall that if f ∈ Λ1(I), then f is differentiable almost ev- erywhere,f0 ∈L(I)andkfkΛ1 =kf0k. (See, for example, Natanson [10].) Letr= (M+m)/2; then

kf −rxkΛ1 =kf0−rk= M−m 2 .

We now show that (1.6) is sharp and that equality holds exactly when (1.8) holds. First note that if (1.8) holds, then by (2.3),

Li = Z

Ji+

(t−ci)M dt+ Z

Ji

(t−ci)m dt=±|I|2

8n2(M −m),

(22)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page22of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

and it follows at once from (2.5) that equality holds in (1.6).

To prove that (1.8) is necessary for (1.6) to hold, we consider two cases.

Case 3.1. M > 0andm =−M. In this case, EnT(f) = |I|2

4nM.

Again by (2.3), EnT(f)≤

n

X

i=1

Z

Ji

(t−ci)f0(t)dt

n

X

i=1

Z

Ji

(t−ci)f0(t)dt

+ Z

Ji+

(t−ci)f0(t)dt

≤ |I|2 8n2

n

X

i=1

kf0k∞,J

i +kf0k∞,J+

i

≤ |I|2

8n M +|I|2 8n M,

and since the first and last terms are equal, equality must hold throughout.

Therefore, we must have that (3.2) |Li |=kf0k∞,J

i

Z

Ji

(ci−t)dt, |L+i |=kf0k∞,J+

i

Z

Ji+

(t−ci)dt, and

(3.3) |I|2

8n2

n

X

i=1

kf0k∞,J+

i = |I|2 8n2

n

X

i=1

kf0k∞,J

i = |I|2 8n M.

(23)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page23of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

Hence, by (3.2), onJi

f0(t) =αiχJ+

i (t)−βiχJ

i (t),

with eitherαi, βi >0for alli, orαi, βi <0for alli. Without loss of generality we assume thatαi, βi >0.

Further, we must have thatM = sup{αi : 1 ≤ i ≤ n}, so it follows from (3.3) thatαi = M for alli. Similarly, we must have thatβi = M,1 ≤ i ≤ n.

This completes the proof of Case3.1.

Case 3.2. The general case: m < M. Letr= (M +m)/2; then

EnT(f) = |I|2

8n (M −m) =EnT(fr).

Since Case3.1applies tofr, we have that

fr0(t) = M −m 2

n

X

i=1

χJ+

i (t)−χJ

i (t) .

This completes the proof sincef0 =fr0 +r.

The proof that (1.7) is sharp and equality holds if and only if (1.9) holds is essentially the same as the above argument, and we omit the details.

Proof of Theorem1.3. We first prove (1.10). By (2.2) and the definition of the norm inCBV(I), for eachi,1≤i≤n,

|Li| ≤ Z

Ji

|f(xi−1)−f(t)|dt+ Z

Ji+

|f(xi)−f(t)|dt

(24)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page24of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

≤ kfkBV,J

i |Ji|+kfkBV,J+

i |Ji+|

= 1

2nkfkBV,Ji. If we sum overi, we get

EnT(f)≤ 1 2n

n

X

i=1

kfkBV,Ji = 1

2nkfkBV,I; inequality (1.10) now follows from the remark in Section2.2.

To show that inequality (1.10) is sharp, fix n ≥ 1 and for k ≥ 1 define ak = 4−k/n. We now define the function fk on I = [0,1] as follows: on [0,1/n]let

fk(x) =

















1− x

an 0≤x≤an

0 an ≤x≤ 1

n −an

1 + x−n1 an

1

n −an≤x≤ 1 n.

Extend fk to [0,1] periodically with period 1/n. It follows at once from the definition thatkfkkBV,[0,1] = 2n. Furthermore,

EnT(fk) =

Tn(fk)− Z 1

0

fk(t)dt

= 1−akn= 1−4−k. Thus the constant1/2nin (1.10) is the best possible.

(25)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page25of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

We now consider when equality can hold in (1.10). Iff(t) = mt+b, then we have equality since both sides are zero.

For the converse implication we first show that iff ∈ CBV(I)is not con- stant onI, then

(3.4) EnT(f)< |I|

2nkfkBV,I.

By the above argument, it will suffice to show that for somei,

|Li|< |I|

2nkfkBV,Ji.

Since f is non-constant, choose i such that f is not constant on Ji. Since f is continuous, the function|f(xi−1) +f(xi)−2f(t)|achieves its maximum at some t ∈ Ji, and, again becausef is non-constant, it must be strictly smaller than its maximum on a set of positive measure. Hence on a set of positive measure,|f(xi−1) +f(xi)−2f(t)|<kfkBV,Ji, and so (3.4) follows from (2.1), since we can rewrite this as

Li = 1 2

Z

Ji

f(xi−1) +f(xi)−2f(t) dt.

To finish the proof, note that as we observed in Section2.2, there existsr0 such thatkfr0kBV,I = infrkfrkBV,I. Hence, we would have that

EnT(f) =EnT(fr0)≤ |I|

2nkfr0kBV,I.

(26)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page26of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

Iff(t)were not of the formmt+b, so thatfr0 could not be a constant function, then by (3.4), the inequality would be strict. Hence equality can only hold iff is linear.

The proof that inequality (1.11) holds is almost identical to the proof of (1.10): we begin with inequality (2.7) and argue exactly as we did above.

The proof that inequality (1.11) is sharp requires a small modification to the example given above. Fix n ≥ 1 and, as before, let ak = 4−k/n. Define the functionfkonI = [0,1]as follows: on[0,1/n]let

fk(x) =

































0 0≤x≤ 1

2n −an

1 + x− 2n1 an

1

2n −an≤x≤ 1 2n

1 +

1 2n −x

an

1

2n ≤x≤ 1 2n +an

0 1

2n +an ≤x≤ 1 n.

Extendfkto[0,1]periodically with period1/n. Then we again havekfkkBV,[0,1] = 2n; furthermore,

E2nS (fk) =

S2n(fk)− Z 1

0

fk(t)dt

= 2

3 −akn = 2

3 −4−k. Thus the constant1/3nin (1.11) is the best possible.

(27)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page27of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

The proof that equality holds in (1.11) only when both sides are zero is again very similar to the above argument, replacingLi byKi and using (2.6) instead of (2.1).

(28)

Sharp Error Bounds for the Trapezoidal Rule and Simpson’s

Rule

D. Cruz-Uribe,C.J. Neugebauer

Title Page Contents

JJ II

J I

Go Back Close

Quit Page28of49

J. Ineq. Pure and Appl. Math. 3(4) Art. 49, 2002

http://jipam.vu.edu.au

4. Functions in W

1p

(I ) and W

1pq

(I ), 1 ≤ p, q ≤ ∞

Proof of Theorem1.4. As we noted in Remarks 1.5 and1.7, it suffices to con- sider the case1< p <∞.

We first prove inequality (1.12). If we apply Hölder’s inequality to (2.3), then for alli,1≤i≤n,

|Li| ≤ kf0kp,Ji Z

Ji

|t−ci|p0dt 1/p0

.

An elementary calculation shows that Z

Ji

|t−ci|p0dt= |Ji|p0+1 (p0 + 1)2p0.

Hence, by (2.5) and by Hölder’s inequality for series, EnT(f)≤ |I|1+1/p0

2(p0+ 11/p0)n1+1/p0

n

X

i=1

Z

Ji

|f0(t)|pdt 1/p

≤ |I|1+1/p0 2(p0+ 1)1/p0n1+1/p0

Z

I

|f0(t)|pdt 1/p

n1/p0

= |I|1+1/p0

2(p0 + 1)1/p0nkf0kp,I.

Inequality (1.12) now follows from the observation in Section2.2.

参照

関連したドキュメント

In this paper the classes of groups we will be interested in are the following three: groups of the form F k o α Z for F k a free group of finite rank k and α an automorphism of F k

By the algorithm in [1] for drawing framed link descriptions of branched covers of Seifert surfaces, a half circle should be drawn in each 1–handle, and then these eight half

Since the boundary integral equation is Fredholm, the solvability theorem follows from the uniqueness theorem, which is ensured for the Neumann problem in the case of the

In 1965, Kolakoski [7] introduced an example of a self-generating sequence by creating the sequence defined in the following way..

Next, we prove bounds for the dimensions of p-adic MLV-spaces in Section 3, assuming results in Section 4, and make a conjecture about a special element in the motivic Galois group

We consider some nonlinear second order scalar ODEs of the form x 00 + f (t, x) = 0, where f is periodic in the t–variable and show the existence of infinitely many periodic

Transirico, “Second order elliptic equations in weighted Sobolev spaces on unbounded domains,” Rendiconti della Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze detta dei XL.. Memorie di

In this paper, we consider the coupled difference system (1.1) for a general class of reaction functions ( f (1) , f (2) ), and our aim is to show the existence and uniqueness of